5 ms·

Amazon Wants to Be a Satellite-Internet Powerhouse. It Has a Long Way to Go

45 points by fortran77 2y ago

djoldman 2y ago
https://archive.ph/brZmg https://archive.ph/brZmg
lupusreal 2y ago
The terms of their FCC license require them to have half their presently licensed constellation, roughly 1600 satellites, in orbit by July of 2026. They're almost certainly not going to make it, but I would be very surprised if the FCC doesn't grant them an extension if they can show they're making serious progress and aren't just squatting on that spectrum. The curveball is Trump/Musk influencing the FCC's decision making processes, which is definitely possible. On the other hand, the FCC must know that they will be accused of being corrupt if they don't grant an extension.
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  > The terms of their FCC license require them to have half their presently licensed constellation, roughly 1600 satellites, in orbit by July of 2026. They're almost certainly not going to make it, but I would be very surprised if the FCC doesn't grant them an extension if they can show they're making serious progress and aren't just squatting on that spectrum. I agree. > On the other hand, the FCC must know that they will be accused of being corrupt if they don't grant an extension. Score:5, Funny
- willglynn 2y ago
  This is not discretionary for the FCC: > A station authorization shall be automatically terminated in whole or in part without further notice to the licensee upon: > … > (d) The failure to maintain 50 percent of the maximum number of NGSO space stations authorized for service following the 9-year milestone period as functional space stations in authorized orbits, which failure will result in the termination of authority for the space stations not in orbit as of the date of noncompliance, but allow for technically identical replacements. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-25/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFR3e61a02158c60ca/section-25.161 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B... _Congress_ can change this, but as written, Federal law compels the FCC to automatically terminate the authorization for failing to deploy half the satellites under 47 CFR § 25.161(d), just as they must automatically terminate the authorization when the license expires under 47 CFR § 25.161(b).
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    Is this another case where it could be overridden in case of "national emergency"? That seems to be how the administration does things nowadays.
  - meragrin_ 2y ago
    Bureaucrats write what falls under the CFR. Congress writes the US Code. Unless there is something in the US Code which specifies the period in which the licensee must have 50% of the satellites in place, the bureaucrats can change the rules in the CFR. Somehow I doubt Congress was that detailed. They likely just passed the buck to let the bureaucrats specify the details.
    - axus 2y ago
      There could be a lawsuit because now the courts get to decide the details, instead of the bureaucrats.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
juujian 2y ago
Why does Bezos always feel like he needs to be everything for everyone. He is almost as bad at focusing on core businesses and strengths as Zuckerberg.
- po26511 2y ago
  Do get the sentiment when looking at where Amazon's performance is going, but maybe mistargeted. There's definitely always something grey about what chairmen do, but given he doesn't run Amazon anymore (nothing grey when comparing to Zuckerberg/Meta) he can be free to work on things he wants to right?
- M3L0NM4N 2y ago
  I think Amazon (not Bezos) is relatively conservative in the space of "trying new things", but I'd argue when they have done it, they have a higher success rate than the other mega caps (excluding Apple I'd say). Somehow though, big tech can't seem to spend most of their cash doing it (insert that Thiel quote here).
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  In this case I think they want to own their backbone - much like owning fibre.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  The difference is AWS is the backbone of the modern Internet and Amazon is a dominant force in retail, which gives him a cash-printing machine. Zuck has one website that's been a has-been enshittified hellscape for going on almost 10 years now, another he very well might be forced to sell, and a pivot to a "metaverse" that's nothing but one big bonfire of cash. Meta may be R&Ding the shit out of VR/AR, but there's no guarantee they're going to be able to cash in.
- mrweasel 2y ago
  What is Amazons core business these days? Is it the "everything store" or is it AWS? Because I think it's AWS and then being able to provide internet connectivity aligns sort of okay with pushing for more traffic to AWS.
babyent 2y ago
If it’s convenient like Prime then sure. I like the 5% back on the entire ecosystem plus watching Fallout and other cool shows.
Zigurd 2y ago
If you look at their marketing material, you find that they are marketing Kuiper almost exactly the way that SpaceX markets Starlink. Except for specialty markets, and what are literally edge cases, they both face a shrinking TAM due to the expansion of terrestrial wireless. I also can't find any compelling synergies with AWS, which seems like the obvious place to look for an advantage if you are Amazon.
- cryptonym 2y ago
  Being an ISP, CDN, Cloud Provider and Content Provider gives serious advantages. That's a great way to out competitors and get hefty fines at some point.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Emerging markets with next to nill infrastructure and high practical barriers to terrestrial infrastructure due to no roads / legal protection or presence of easements / people will rip fiber right out of the ditch to sell for $0.10 -- I've seen people in developing nations spend their entire month's paycheck on a cell-phone top off. They might do the same for satellite internet.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    That's good in terms of delivering utility to people, perhaps also a geopolitical thing if there is competition from China in developing countries. But it doesn't sound very profitable. The costs are all at US prices (engineers, hardware etc) and selling to the developing world. It's "buy high, sell low".
    - ty6853 2y ago
      As far as I know US prices are the lowest ones available to Africans for satellite internet. Is it cheaper to launch in Africa? If you think it's cheaper to launch rockets and use engineers in Sudan or something you have outsmarted Bezos. He is such a greedy bastard, I have 0 doubt whatsoever that if it were possible and cheaper he would do it instead. Even though this may seem backwards, it is buy low sell high. They are getting engineering and telecom services far cheaper than they can provide in their own country, and the cost to provide terrestrial in their own (OP's stated alternative) would be phenomenal.
kennethologist 2y ago
No Paywall: http://archive.today/brZmg http://archive.today/brZmg
vvpan 2y ago
So is the problem of too much space junk real? If yes then how much can satellite Internet really grow?
- rekenaut 2y ago
  Space junk is real but much less of an issue at the low altitudes at which these newer constellations usually operate (very low in low Earth orbit). Without expending propellant to boost orbits, atmospheric drag causes them to naturally deorbit in months or a few years at most. Space junk and orbital debris are much bigger issues for higher altitudes where atmospheric drag is much weaker, but none of these satellites are that high.
  - waldarbeiter 2y ago
    Yeah, the debris removes itself with time. But there is still some uncertainty around how deorbiting harms the atmosphere [1]. Immediate effects of a single deorbit seem to be quite low but having such deorbiting scenarios at a higher frequency could have some negative effects. [1] https://blogs.esa.int/cleanspace/2022/08/11/on-the-atmospheric-impact-of-spacecraft-demise-upon-reentry/ https://blogs.esa.int/cleanspace/2022/08/11/on-the-atmospher...
    - zugi 2y ago
      > Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario, the average annual global mean ozone loss is found to be between 0.17×10–4 % and 8×10–4 %, while the Antarctic local ozone concentration change can reach about 0.05%. Those impacts are negligible when compared to the impact of anthropogenic activities, in particular emissions of industrial halogen-containing substances such as CFCs, that caused a global ozone loss of 3-4% (since 1970).
  - Symmetry 2y ago
    Some of the Kuiper groups are going to be put at 600+ km which does make me a bit nervous regarding potential debris.
- indoordin0saur 2y ago
jmyeet 2y ago
If you're on the younger side, you may not remember how we've been here before. In the 1990s there was a glut of satellite companies (eg Teledesic, Iridium, Worldsat) [1]. SpaceX's strategy here is quite brilliant: they induce demand for launches and prove Falon 9 reuse while deploying satellites at relatively low cost (because of the reuse) at a price level absolutely nobody can compete with. They're doing well over 100 launches a year at this point. Bezos seems to want to repeat this with Amazon, Blue Origin and Kuiper but I think they've lost before they've even started. Blue Origin simply doesn't have the orbital launch capability that SpaceX does and certainly not anywhere near the price point. BO has underdelivered on BE-$ and New Glenn. SpaceX did too to be fair but that's in the past (ignoring Starship). Starlink is a relatively simple design: it's surface-to-surface through a single hop. I think satellite Internet is likely already a saturated market given you're competing with 4G/5G wireless and fixed line. There's only so many remote locations and people on the move to sell to. [1]: https://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via-satellite-at-30-the-1990s-and-early-2000s/ https://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via-satellite-at-30-t...
- tw_wankette 2y ago
  Starlink now has many laser crosslinks and no longer requires a base station to be in its line of sight.
  - pavluha 2y ago
    But Starlink needs to get the traffic to/from the ground eventually, right? And those ground links having their capacity. So I think it is nice to have laser crosslinks, but they will not eliminate the base stations capacity requirements.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  What Blue Origin really has going for them is effectively infinite funding for as long as Bezos wants to keep at it. They've already slogged through most of New Glenn's development with hardly any revenue, and that's after skipping over small lift completely. As for the market being saturated, I think Blue Origin could plenty of business in the "anybody but SpaceX" market. They're up against Rocket Lab (who is still stuck in small lift.)
zelon88 2y ago
In the 2000s the American Government released GPS to everyone. This prevented unnecessary constellations of commercial satellites from companies like TomTom and Garmin which would have polluted orbit and complicated future space missions. The US Government should nationalize Starlink and provide all Americans with internet service. It's the only way satellite internet makes sense.
- donnachangstein 2y ago
  > The US Government should nationalize Starlink and provide all Americans with internet service. This is a repeated trope and more ridiculous each time I hear it. Starlink is a private company that is in the business of selling the US Government as well as consumers its services. You can't just "nationalize" it on a whim; after all, the US isn't Cuba. GPS was always owned and operated by the US military so it's an apples and oranges comparison at best.
  - graemep 2y ago
    > You can't just "nationalize" it on a whim; Governments can do exactly that. The legislature can change the law to enable it if necessary. > the US isn't Cuba. it is not just communist countries that nationalised things. Much of Europe did up to the 1970s, lots of Asian democracies did.
    - NikkiA 2y ago
      > it is not just communist countries that nationalised things. Much of Europe did up to the 1970s, lots of Asian democracies did. I suspect you're about to have your eyes opened to just how the american right feels about pre-neoliberal europe and asia.
      - graemep 2y ago
        I already knew, but rapid downvotes on HN which is relatively rational surprised me. There was a lovely radio interview of Neil Kinnock (former leader of the British Labour Party) many years ago in which he described the reactions of some Americans to him being a socialist (and not the British equivalent of the Democrats). One woman said "You can't be socialists, you're too nice".
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43827083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43827083

45 points by fortran77 2y ago

https://archive.ph/brZmg https://archive.ph/brZmg

The terms of their FCC license require them to have half their presently licensed constellation, roughly 1600 satellites, in orbit by July of 2026. They're almost certainly not going to make it, but I would be very surprised if the FCC doesn't grant them an extension if they can show they're making serious progress and aren't just squatting on that spectrum. The curveball is Trump/Musk influencing the FCC's decision making processes, which is definitely possible. On the other hand, the FCC must know that they will be accused of being corrupt if they don't grant an extension.

philipwhiuk 2y ago
> The terms of their FCC license require them to have half their presently licensed constellation, roughly 1600 satellites, in orbit by July of 2026. They're almost certainly not going to make it, but I would be very surprised if the FCC doesn't grant them an extension if they can show they're making serious progress and aren't just squatting on that spectrum. I agree. > On the other hand, the FCC must know that they will be accused of being corrupt if they don't grant an extension. Score:5, Funny
willglynn 2y ago
This is not discretionary for the FCC: > A station authorization shall be automatically terminated in whole or in part without further notice to the licensee upon: > … > (d) The failure to maintain 50 percent of the maximum number of NGSO space stations authorized for service following the 9-year milestone period as functional space stations in authorized orbits, which failure will result in the termination of authority for the space stations not in orbit as of the date of noncompliance, but allow for technically identical replacements. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-25/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFR3e61a02158c60ca/section-25.161 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B... _Congress_ can change this, but as written, Federal law compels the FCC to automatically terminate the authorization for failing to deploy half the satellites under 47 CFR § 25.161(d), just as they must automatically terminate the authorization when the license expires under 47 CFR § 25.161(b).
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Is this another case where it could be overridden in case of "national emergency"? That seems to be how the administration does things nowadays.
- meragrin_ 2y ago
  Bureaucrats write what falls under the CFR. Congress writes the US Code. Unless there is something in the US Code which specifies the period in which the licensee must have 50% of the satellites in place, the bureaucrats can change the rules in the CFR. Somehow I doubt Congress was that detailed. They likely just passed the buck to let the bureaucrats specify the details.
  - axus 2y ago
    There could be a lawsuit because now the courts get to decide the details, instead of the bureaucrats.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

juujian 2y ago

Why does Bezos always feel like he needs to be everything for everyone. He is almost as bad at focusing on core businesses and strengths as Zuckerberg.

po26511 2y ago
Do get the sentiment when looking at where Amazon's performance is going, but maybe mistargeted. There's definitely always something grey about what chairmen do, but given he doesn't run Amazon anymore (nothing grey when comparing to Zuckerberg/Meta) he can be free to work on things he wants to right?
M3L0NM4N 2y ago
I think Amazon (not Bezos) is relatively conservative in the space of "trying new things", but I'd argue when they have done it, they have a higher success rate than the other mega caps (excluding Apple I'd say). Somehow though, big tech can't seem to spend most of their cash doing it (insert that Thiel quote here).
philipwhiuk 2y ago
In this case I think they want to own their backbone - much like owning fibre.
psunavy03 2y ago
The difference is AWS is the backbone of the modern Internet and Amazon is a dominant force in retail, which gives him a cash-printing machine. Zuck has one website that's been a has-been enshittified hellscape for going on almost 10 years now, another he very well might be forced to sell, and a pivot to a "metaverse" that's nothing but one big bonfire of cash. Meta may be R&Ding the shit out of VR/AR, but there's no guarantee they're going to be able to cash in.
mrweasel 2y ago
What is Amazons core business these days? Is it the "everything store" or is it AWS? Because I think it's AWS and then being able to provide internet connectivity aligns sort of okay with pushing for more traffic to AWS.

babyent 2y ago

If it’s convenient like Prime then sure. I like the 5% back on the entire ecosystem plus watching Fallout and other cool shows.

Zigurd 2y ago

If you look at their marketing material, you find that they are marketing Kuiper almost exactly the way that SpaceX markets Starlink. Except for specialty markets, and what are literally edge cases, they both face a shrinking TAM due to the expansion of terrestrial wireless. I also can't find any compelling synergies with AWS, which seems like the obvious place to look for an advantage if you are Amazon.

cryptonym 2y ago
Being an ISP, CDN, Cloud Provider and Content Provider gives serious advantages. That's a great way to out competitors and get hefty fines at some point.
ty6853 2y ago
Emerging markets with next to nill infrastructure and high practical barriers to terrestrial infrastructure due to no roads / legal protection or presence of easements / people will rip fiber right out of the ditch to sell for $0.10 -- I've seen people in developing nations spend their entire month's paycheck on a cell-phone top off. They might do the same for satellite internet.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  That's good in terms of delivering utility to people, perhaps also a geopolitical thing if there is competition from China in developing countries. But it doesn't sound very profitable. The costs are all at US prices (engineers, hardware etc) and selling to the developing world. It's "buy high, sell low".
  - ty6853 2y ago
    As far as I know US prices are the lowest ones available to Africans for satellite internet. Is it cheaper to launch in Africa? If you think it's cheaper to launch rockets and use engineers in Sudan or something you have outsmarted Bezos. He is such a greedy bastard, I have 0 doubt whatsoever that if it were possible and cheaper he would do it instead. Even though this may seem backwards, it is buy low sell high. They are getting engineering and telecom services far cheaper than they can provide in their own country, and the cost to provide terrestrial in their own (OP's stated alternative) would be phenomenal.

kennethologist 2y ago

No Paywall: http://archive.today/brZmg http://archive.today/brZmg

vvpan 2y ago

So is the problem of too much space junk real? If yes then how much can satellite Internet really grow?

rekenaut 2y ago
Space junk is real but much less of an issue at the low altitudes at which these newer constellations usually operate (very low in low Earth orbit). Without expending propellant to boost orbits, atmospheric drag causes them to naturally deorbit in months or a few years at most. Space junk and orbital debris are much bigger issues for higher altitudes where atmospheric drag is much weaker, but none of these satellites are that high.
- waldarbeiter 2y ago
  Yeah, the debris removes itself with time. But there is still some uncertainty around how deorbiting harms the atmosphere [1]. Immediate effects of a single deorbit seem to be quite low but having such deorbiting scenarios at a higher frequency could have some negative effects. [1] https://blogs.esa.int/cleanspace/2022/08/11/on-the-atmospheric-impact-of-spacecraft-demise-upon-reentry/ https://blogs.esa.int/cleanspace/2022/08/11/on-the-atmospher...
  - zugi 2y ago
    > Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario, the average annual global mean ozone loss is found to be between 0.17×10–4 % and 8×10–4 %, while the Antarctic local ozone concentration change can reach about 0.05%. Those impacts are negligible when compared to the impact of anthropogenic activities, in particular emissions of industrial halogen-containing substances such as CFCs, that caused a global ozone loss of 3-4% (since 1970).
- Symmetry 2y ago
  Some of the Kuiper groups are going to be put at 600+ km which does make me a bit nervous regarding potential debris.
indoordin0saur 2y ago

jmyeet 2y ago

If you're on the younger side, you may not remember how we've been here before. In the 1990s there was a glut of satellite companies (eg Teledesic, Iridium, Worldsat) [1]. SpaceX's strategy here is quite brilliant: they induce demand for launches and prove Falon 9 reuse while deploying satellites at relatively low cost (because of the reuse) at a price level absolutely nobody can compete with. They're doing well over 100 launches a year at this point. Bezos seems to want to repeat this with Amazon, Blue Origin and Kuiper but I think they've lost before they've even started. Blue Origin simply doesn't have the orbital launch capability that SpaceX does and certainly not anywhere near the price point. BO has underdelivered on BE-$ and New Glenn. SpaceX did too to be fair but that's in the past (ignoring Starship). Starlink is a relatively simple design: it's surface-to-surface through a single hop. I think satellite Internet is likely already a saturated market given you're competing with 4G/5G wireless and fixed line. There's only so many remote locations and people on the move to sell to. [1]: https://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via-satellite-at-30-the-1990s-and-early-2000s/ https://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via-satellite-at-30-t...

tw_wankette 2y ago
Starlink now has many laser crosslinks and no longer requires a base station to be in its line of sight.
- pavluha 2y ago
  But Starlink needs to get the traffic to/from the ground eventually, right? And those ground links having their capacity. So I think it is nice to have laser crosslinks, but they will not eliminate the base stations capacity requirements.
lupusreal 2y ago
What Blue Origin really has going for them is effectively infinite funding for as long as Bezos wants to keep at it. They've already slogged through most of New Glenn's development with hardly any revenue, and that's after skipping over small lift completely. As for the market being saturated, I think Blue Origin could plenty of business in the "anybody but SpaceX" market. They're up against Rocket Lab (who is still stuck in small lift.)

zelon88 2y ago

In the 2000s the American Government released GPS to everyone. This prevented unnecessary constellations of commercial satellites from companies like TomTom and Garmin which would have polluted orbit and complicated future space missions. The US Government should nationalize Starlink and provide all Americans with internet service. It's the only way satellite internet makes sense.

donnachangstein 2y ago
> The US Government should nationalize Starlink and provide all Americans with internet service. This is a repeated trope and more ridiculous each time I hear it. Starlink is a private company that is in the business of selling the US Government as well as consumers its services. You can't just "nationalize" it on a whim; after all, the US isn't Cuba. GPS was always owned and operated by the US military so it's an apples and oranges comparison at best.
- graemep 2y ago
  > You can't just "nationalize" it on a whim; Governments can do exactly that. The legislature can change the law to enable it if necessary. > the US isn't Cuba. it is not just communist countries that nationalised things. Much of Europe did up to the 1970s, lots of Asian democracies did.
  - NikkiA 2y ago
    > it is not just communist countries that nationalised things. Much of Europe did up to the 1970s, lots of Asian democracies did. I suspect you're about to have your eyes opened to just how the american right feels about pre-neoliberal europe and asia.
    - graemep 2y ago
      I already knew, but rapid downvotes on HN which is relatively rational surprised me. There was a lovely radio interview of Neil Kinnock (former leader of the British Labour Party) many years ago in which he described the reactions of some Americans to him being a socialist (and not the British equivalent of the Democrats). One woman said "You can't be socialists, you're too nice".

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43827083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43827083